"Patrick James" <patjames@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BC910BD700380AA0F03865B0@enews.newsguy.com...

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 21:33:39 -0500, Randy Story wrote
(in article <106n0fbhijqj70d@corp.supernews.com>):

Then enlighten me please.

Certainly. For one thing, one of several methods of determining the
age of the earth depends on the way that radioactive substances
behave. The

_same_

theories behind that method are _also_ behind the _observed_ fact
that the sun is a thermonuclear reactor and that nuclear power plants
and nuclear bombs work. In other words, one of three things is true:

1 current theory wrt radioisotopes is correct

2 there is a better theory which explains how and why radioisotopes
work,

we

just don't know it yet

3 nuke bombs don't work, and neither do nuke power plants or the sun.

Given that we have empirical evidence that nuke power plants and nuke

bombs

work and the sun seems to be kicking neutrinos after all, option 3 is
a non-starter.

Option 2 is more promising... but any new theory will have to explain
observations reaching back to the days of Becquerel and the Curies.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactivity>. That's over a hundred
years

of

data, some of which was quite spectacular.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_test>. The established timeline
for

the

age of the earth is about 4.5 thousand million years. This is just
under

six

orders of magnitude larger than the 6000 or so years advocated by
many young-earth creationists. It would take a really major change in
the

theory

to account for that. If you think that you can get option 2 to break
the

YEC

way, by all means go for it. There's a Nobel prize awaiting you.

Option 1 is, well, not what you want.

Another method for determining the age of the earth depends on the
same theories which say why lightbulbs work. Again, there are three
choices:

1 current theory wrt electromagnetic fields is correct

2 there is a better theory which explains how and why emag fields
work, we just don't know it yet

3 light bulbs don't work.

Light bulbs appear to work; I'm looking at one now, in so far as a
cathode ray tube monitor is essentially a specialised light bulb.
Option 3 is out. Emag theory goes back to Newton. Einstein got his
Nobel for work on emag theory (the photoelectric effect,
specifically, and not for relativity)

and a

case can be made for saying that emag field theories are the most

important

aspects of physics and have been since the mid-19th century. A _lot_
of

very

bright people have worked on emag theory. It is possible that they're
all wrong. It's not likely. There's another Nobel prize awaiting
anyone who

does

that kind of major change to emag theory.

I may no know all the jargon

And yet you know enough to dismiss the work of professionals in the
field, professionals over a period of a century and more.

but I believe the
assumptions

Name these assumptions.

that dating methods are based on are quite bogus.

State why you think they are bogus. Be specific. Supply evidence, or
at

least

pointers to where we can get this evidence. If you don't want to
collect

at

least _two_ Nobel prizes, I certainly do.

Maybe you
should look at the island of Surtsey as an example.

Plate tectonics at work. So what?
<http://www.zen24203.zen.co.uk/surtsey/>

In

particular please note "The discovery of an eruption came as no
surprise

to

Icelandic geologists, as Iceland was itself formed by volcanic
activity".

Patrick. I appreciate you trying to give some understanding and I
do
understand that things work today such as nuclear bombs and light
bulbs. Th problem is you didnt think to answer my dilemma. Lets juslok
at the uranium lead method of dating. We know the half life is 50,000
years and therefore when we find uranium ores we check the amount of
actual radium to lead in the samples, lets say we find a 50 50
distribution sample so we calculate the sample to be 50,000 years old,
we find a 75 25 % sample and we calculate the sample to be 100,000
years old, etc. Potassium argon methods work in similar fashion with
even more issues then I will quickly mention here.
The problem is that it is assumed that the initial sample was
pure,
meaning no decay in its original form, but thu is exactly the problem,
we cant know that. If in fact the isotope or sample of ore was created
with decay present then all bets are off as to the true age of any
sample.

The reason I brought up Surtsey is that this volcanic island only
apppeared 4 decades or so ago, and yet when tested as to age was found
to be over 2 billion years old. The potassium argon method was used in
this sample and of course it was bogus.

"Patrick James" <patjames@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BC910BD700380AA0F03865B0@enews.newsguy.com...

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 21:33:39 -0500, Randy Story wrote
(in article <106n0fbhijqj70d@corp.supernews.com>):

Then enlighten me please.

Certainly. For one thing, one of several methods of determining the age

the earth depends on the way that radioactive substances behave. The

_same_

theories behind that method are _also_ behind the _observed_ fact that

sun is a thermonuclear reactor and that nuclear power plants and nuclear
bombs work. In other words, one of three things is true:

1 current theory wrt radioisotopes is correct

2 there is a better theory which explains how and why radioisotopes

we

just don't know it yet

3 nuke bombs don't work, and neither do nuke power plants or the sun.

Given that we have empirical evidence that nuke power plants and nuke

bombs

work and the sun seems to be kicking neutrinos after all, option 3 is a
non-starter.

Option 2 is more promising... but any new theory will have to explain
observations reaching back to the days of Becquerel and the Curies.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactivity>. That's over a hundred

of

data, some of which was quite spectacular.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_test>. The established timeline

the

age of the earth is about 4.5 thousand million years. This is just under

six

orders of magnitude larger than the 6000 or so years advocated by many
young-earth creationists. It would take a really major change in the

theory

to account for that. If you think that you can get option 2 to break the

YEC

way, by all means go for it. There's a Nobel prize awaiting you.

Option 1 is, well, not what you want.

Another method for determining the age of the earth depends on the same
theories which say why lightbulbs work. Again, there are three choices:

1 current theory wrt electromagnetic fields is correct

2 there is a better theory which explains how and why emag fields work,

just don't know it yet

3 light bulbs don't work.

Light bulbs appear to work; I'm looking at one now, in so far as a

ray tube monitor is essentially a specialised light bulb. Option 3 is

Emag theory goes back to Newton. Einstein got his Nobel for work on emag
theory (the photoelectric effect, specifically, and not for relativity)

and a

case can be made for saying that emag field theories are the most

important

aspects of physics and have been since the mid-19th century. A _lot_ of

very

bright people have worked on emag theory. It is possible that they're

wrong. It's not likely. There's another Nobel prize awaiting anyone who

does

that kind of major change to emag theory.

I may no know all the jargon

And yet you know enough to dismiss the work of professionals in the

professionals over a period of a century and more.

but I believe the
assumptions

Name these assumptions.

that dating methods are based on are quite bogus.

State why you think they are bogus. Be specific. Supply evidence, or at

least

pointers to where we can get this evidence. If you don't want to collect

at

least _two_ Nobel prizes, I certainly do.

Maybe you
should look at the island of Surtsey as an example.

Plate tectonics at work. So what?

In

particular please note "The discovery of an eruption came as no surprise

to

Icelandic geologists, as Iceland was itself formed by volcanic

Patrick. I appreciate you trying to give some understanding and I do
understand that things work today such as nuclear bombs and light bulbs.

problem is you didnt think to answer my dilemma. Lets juslok at the

lead method of dating. We know the half life is 50,000 years and therefore
when we find uranium ores we check the amount of actual radium to lead in
the samples, lets say we find a 50 50 distribution sample so we calculate
the sample to be 50,000 years old, we find a 75 25 % sample and we

the sample to be 100,000 years old, etc. Potassium argon methods work in
similar fashion with even more issues then I will quickly mention here.
The problem is that it is assumed that the initial sample was pure,
meaning no decay in its original form, but thu is exactly the problem, we
cant know that. If in fact the isotope or sample of ore was created with
decay present then all bets are off as to the true age of any sample.
The reason I brought up Surtsey is that this volcanic island only
apppeared 4 decades or so ago, and yet when tested as to age was found to

over 2 billion years old. The potassium argon method was used in this

and of course it was bogus.

Patrick. I appreciate you trying to give some understanding and I do
understand that things work today such as nuclear bombs and light bulbs.

problem is you didnt think to answer my dilemma. Lets juslok at the

lead method of dating. We know the half life is 50,000 years and therefore
when we find uranium ores we check the amount of actual radium to lead in
the samples, lets say we find a 50 50 distribution sample so we calculate
the sample to be 50,000 years old, we find a 75 25 % sample and we

the sample to be 100,000 years old, etc. Potassium argon methods work in
similar fashion with even more issues then I will quickly mention here.
The problem is that it is assumed that the initial sample was pure,
meaning no decay in its original form, but thu is exactly the problem, we
cant know that. If in fact the isotope or sample of ore was created with
decay present then all bets are off as to the true age of any sample.

The reason I brought up Surtsey is that this volcanic island only
apppeared 4 decades or so ago, and yet when tested as to age was found to

over 2 billion years old. The potassium argon method was used in this

and of course it was bogus.

"Patrick James" <patjames@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BC910BD700380AA0F03865B0@enews.newsguy.com...

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 21:33:39 -0500, Randy Story wrote
(in article <106n0fbhijqj70d@corp.supernews.com>):

The problem is that it is assumed that the initial sample was pure,
meaning no decay in its original form, but thu is exactly the problem, we
cant know that. If in fact the isotope or sample of ore was created with
decay present then all bets are off as to the true age of any sample.

The reason I brought up Surtsey is that this volcanic island only
apppeared 4 decades or so ago, and yet when tested as to age was found to be
over 2 billion years old. The potassium argon method was used in this sample
and of course it was bogus.

"Patrick James" <patjames@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BC910BD700380AA0F03865B0@enews.newsguy.com...

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 21:33:39 -0500, Randy Story wrote
(in article <106n0fbhijqj70d@corp.supernews.com>):

Patrick. I appreciate you trying to give some understanding and I do
understand that things work today such as nuclear bombs and light bulbs. Th
problem is you didnt think to answer my dilemma. Lets juslok at the uranium
lead method of dating. We know the half life is 50,000 years and therefore
when we find uranium ores we check the amount of actual radium to lead in
the samples, lets say we find a 50 50 distribution sample so we calculate
the sample to be 50,000 years old, we find a 75 25 % sample and we calculate
the sample to be 100,000 years old, etc. Potassium argon methods work in
similar fashion with even more issues then I will quickly mention here.
The problem is that it is assumed that the initial sample was pure,
meaning no decay in its original form, but thu is exactly the problem, we
cant know that. If in fact the isotope or sample of ore was created with
decay present then all bets are off as to the true age of any sample.
The reason I brought up Surtsey is that this volcanic island only
apppeared 4 decades or so ago, and yet when tested as to age was found to be
over 2 billion years old. The potassium argon method was used in this sample
and of course it was bogus.